Tendo City

BE IT HEREBY KNOWN TO ALL

That as of June 17th, Anno Goroni 2010, I, Darunia S. Goron, King of Hyrule, Britain, Canada and France, Lord of the Emerald Isles, &tc., *tc., hereby forthwith renounce and withdraw any and all affiliations to the Republican Party, and declare a state of POLITICAL NEUTRALITY, in the absence of there being any one objective and reasonable political party.

The chief irreconciliable catalyst being the professed Christian and pro-religious nature of the Republican party.

BE IT KNOWN ALSO that for the foreseeable future I shall continue to vote Republican, until I find a more suitable party, more in line with my beliefs as an individual.

I still identify as a fiscal conservative, and anti-abortion, while also being anti-religion.

What?

You could affiliate with the Libertarians, they're generally anti-abortion (though it arguably goes against that belief system).

A true Libertarian would never wish to enforce abortion laws, regardless of his personal morality.

Libertarians often have good ideas, but have a tendency to be both extreme and unrealistic.

You mean anti-abortion laws, right? Abortion involves control over one's body without interference from a government body. It gets a little hairy, because you can argue that you're harming another individual (the fetus), but depending on how you define when a life begins, anti-abortion laws are against the tenets of libertarianism.

The dispute over whether or not an unborn fetus has rights mostly revolves around a technicality in the preamble to the Constitution regarding who is protected, which is any person born in the United States as well as legal immigrants, tourists, blah blah blah, etc. This is then countered by an argument of letter of the law vs. spirit of the law, that the pro-choice argument focuses too much on specific wording to the point that it's drawing interpretations that the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution never would have intended rather than using common sense to determine that yes, fetuses are living human beings with the same inalienable right to life as every born person.

'Tis a messy business, but regardless of each individual's or group's personal feelings, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade exactly the argument that Sacred Jellybean gave: that the government has no right to interfere with a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases, including her right to have an abortion.

I'm happy that you've finally escaped the Left-Right Paradigm, Daruina. As a full-blood libertarian, I ask that you take the time to look at our beliefs and see if you agree with them or not. Of course, being an independent is nothing to be ashamed of, either.

Some books that I recommend you read if you're interested:

-The Revolution by Ron Paul
-End the Fed by Ron Paul
-Nullification by Tom Woods
-Lies the Government Told You
-A Foreign Policy of Freedom by Ron Paul
-Meltdown by Tom Woods

And, Ryan, quick question: what, pray tell, is unrealistic about our beliefs? I thought a party that wanted to return the government to its constitutional roots was the most realistic thing to do. I mean, look at the shit that you've been getting from the Republicrats for the past century.

There are libertarians who are really anarchists. I've come to accept that there is a place for government in certain aspects, things that individual communities and states simply cannot provide, and are important. Science funding is a major one. National defense is another. I'm not even strictly against national health care, if it operates in a way that does not interfere with the patient's interests and the accounting is very thorough (the primary reason I don't like ObamaCare is that I think it is very sloppy on both fronts).

Honestly, though, I think many, many things have changed since 1789, and it is not realistic, or wise, to revert everything back that far. The founders were, on the whole, wise men, but by no means prescient, and there are parts of the Constitution (not many, mind) which should be revised to fit with the current state of things. What, for example, would they have thought about a health-care system which provides for everyone's well-being? It's hard to say. I doubt the concept would even fit in most of their imaginations.

One major thing that has changed since 1789 is the importance of states. Back then, there were only 13, and people rarely left the state in which they were born. Each state was very heterogeneous, almost national entities of their own right. The trend has been angling away from this ever since the Civil War, and with mobility and communications being what they are today, the notion of a state is, realistically, more of a statistical subdivision rather than a self-contained political enterprise allied to all other states by writ of law. If the states today had the kind of political sway they had back then, demographics and political differences might have the United States resembling Yugoslavia. In a handful of generations, Hispanics will likely be a majority ethnicity. Do we want a situation where states of heavy Hispanic population decide that they want out of the Union?

I think the optimal methodology is to not fully subscribe to any individual political philosophy, but to approach every problem individually, and consider which solutions will provide the best solutions and the least amount of disruption. Sometimes, that will mean that the government is going to have to spend some money and, sometimes, take some control. Individuals will never be able to stand against groups, and if they form groups, they have the potential to themselves oppress other individuals. There needs to be a balance in all things. Or, as close as we can manage.

^You neglected to mention that each and every state has its own individual constitution that allows them to enact the powers inscribed to them via the tenth amendment. I bring this up because I don't quite understand your idea of America looking like Yugoslavia if states had the power that they had back then. First, I want to start with your view on the Hispanic population. You're right that political demographics could very well change. However, you're forgetting that a majority of the Hispanic population in the western hemisphere of this country is illegal. Hell, my state alone has one of the largest illegal populations in the country. In fact, estimations put between 150,000 and 200,000 illegals in Nevada in 2005. That number has continued to sky-rocket since then. More startling are statistics that show that during this year, tax payers are expected to pay a whooping $950,000,000 in taxes for things like healthcare for illegals. If the major states of the west--California, Nevada, Utah, etc.--began creating laws similar to Arizona's, this country wouldn't have to worry about a major pole shift that would cause the general consensus to lean toward pro-welfare ideologies.